GURUMURTHY Vs. S.V.NAGESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being the applicant is impugning the order dtd. 18/9/2020 passed in OS No.327 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, rejecting IA.14 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead him as defendant No.11.

(2.) Heard Sri M Krishnappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B M Gunjal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri L M Ramaiah Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Notice to other respondents is dispensed with vide order dtd. 22/1/2024. Perused the materials on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 as plaintiffs filed suit OS No.327 of 2011 for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. The applicant purchased one item of the property in the name of defendant No.2. There was memorandum of understanding between the applicant and defendant No.2 in respect of the said property. When defendant No.2 had not complied with the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the petitioner filed OS No.88 of 2013 seeking specific performance of the contract, which came to be decreed vide decree dtd. 7/4/2013. Since the present suit is pending for consideration, the petitioner could not execute the said decree.